Islam and Sectarianism (09 Jan 2018 NewAgeIslam.Com)

Rights of Non-Muslims Living In Minority – Part 2 – Protection of Their Lives

By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi, New Age Islam

09 January 2018

The first part of this series concisely and objectively reported on religious freedom granted by Islam to non-Muslims. This second part deals with the exploration of the right to life of peaceful non-Muslims living in minority or under any Muslim-governed country. Islam commands the Muslims to protect the life of these peaceful non-Muslims and has made it impermissible to kill any one of them unless he is sentenced for murder or a capital crime. This is mainly because Allah the Most High has said,

Allah Almighty says:

“And do not kill the soul whose (killing) Allah has forbidden, except when it is rightfully due (according to law in self-defence against disruption and whilst combating terrorism). It is these (injunctions) He has enjoined upon you so that you may apply reason”. (6:151)

In another oft-quoted Quranic verse Allah Almighty says,

“Whoever kills a human being except in lieu of killing or causing turmoil in the earth, so it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and whoever saves the life of one person, is as if he had saved the life of all mankind; and undoubtedly Our Noble Messengers came to them with clear proofs – then after this indeed many of them are oppressors in the earth”. (5:32)

This verse witnesses that killing a person unjustly is tantamount to kill all mankind and saving a person is like saving all mankind. The message of this verse is applicable to both Muslims and non-Muslims.

Now the question arises as to why there are so many verses of the Quran and Ahadith which talk about fighting Kuffar, Mushrikin, Mufsidin, such as in the verses and Ahadith referenced below;

Having read the above referenced Quranic verses and Ahadith, a number of people describe Islam as a hostile and aggressive religion. This stereotype has been extensively reinforced by the acts of terrorists and fanatics. Hence the world opinion including mostly of non-Muslims as well as of the terrorists tends towards viewing Islam as a violent and extremist religion. Very few of the non-Muslims see it as a religion that forbids any kind of aggression and permits fighting only in self-defence. Hence it is necessary to convince all of them about the truth that Islam does not stand for what they think it does.

But in fact the above referenced Quranic verses and Ahadith deal with the war-related rulings and situations related to self-defence. However this self-defence cannot be claimed at individual level or by a group of individuals. The idea of self-defence is applicable to the situation, when it turns to be too destructive to be controlled and when there is no option left except for fighting in defence. As obviously the fight for defence is the right of every country, so it is not wrong to say that the Muslim governments are allowed to defend their land, property, life etc. But it is completely wrong to derive the meaning from these verses and Ahadith in justification for fighting against those non-Muslims who have agreed to live peacefully in minority or majority.

Now another question arises as to what about those scholars who support the view that some of these war-related verses have abrogated the peace-related verses and war should be waged against Kuffar for all time to come.

This is an important question and needs to be answered. In this brief article, it is difficult to cover all the quotes and arguments and present their analytical view. But briefly in reply to this question, my argument is that we should not forget that such scholars, at the same time, also support the opinion that those Kuffar or non-Muslims who have agreed to live peacefully in minority or under Muslim-governed country [i.e. Mu’ahid] should not be killed unjustly.

Apparent as it is from the above that some readers may sense a contradiction in these two points; 1) that war-related verses have abrogated the peace-related verses and thus war should be waged against Kuffar for all time to come and 2) that those Kuffar or non-Muslims who have agreed to live peacefully in minority or under any Muslim-governed country [i.e. Mu’ahid] should not be killed unjustly. At the one hand they opine that the war should be waged against Kuffar, while at the same time they say the war should not be waged against the Kuffar. What are those types of Kuffar against whom the war should be waged? And what are those types of Kuffar against whom the war should not be waged?

Based on my understanding of a major part of their texts, I have reached a conclusion that those scholars, who have described some of these war-related verses as ones abrogating some peaceful verses of the Quran, must have done so for fighting against the religious persecutors from among the Kuffar. This understanding can be deduced from their quoting the situation of Makkah that then Muslims were not allowed to fight back in their self-defence even in the state of war against religious persecutors from among the Kuffar. But when the Muslims increased in number they were given permission to fight back in self-defence against those religious persecutors from among the Kuffar and Mushrikin.

These scholars adopted the idea “the war-related verses have abrogated the verses related to peace, patience and tolerance”, because they must have thought that in the state of self-defence or live-or-die, the idea of peace and patience will not save their life. They must have thought that the idea of peace and tolerance will work only with those Kuffar and non-Muslims who are peaceful. These scholars must have taken into their mind the situation of Makkah, as they narrate in their books, that Muslims had been thrown out of their homes, persecuted and killed but their patience could not save them from being killed and persecuted. And if the Muslims had not been given permission to fight back in self-defence, they would have not have existed today in this world. So these scholars must have presented the war-related verses as all-time applicable only for fighting against the religious persecutors from among the Kuffar and not for all the Kuffar who are living in the state of peace along with Muslims.

The reason is that I and we can easily trace with the god-gifted intelligence in the texts of these scholars that the peaceful non-Muslims or peaceful Kuffar [Mu’ahid] who have agreed to live peacefully with Muslims are excluded from their general statement of “war-related verses abrogating peace-related verses”. To sum up my understanding of their texts, it can be appropriately summarized that such scholars must have regarded the war-related verses as all-time applicable only for fighting against the religious persecutors from among the Kuffar and not against those Kuffar who are living peacefully. This can be deduced from the following materials as well.

Now the question is; why is it that the peaceful Kuffar or non-Muslims are excluded from the texts that support the statement that “some war-related verses have abrogated the peace-related verses”? What is the proof? The Muslim scholars and Fuqaha [experts in Islamic rulings to a much higher degree] present in their proof the verses [6:51], [5:32], [2:252] and the following Ahadith which are the central points of this article—that peaceful non-Muslims living in minority or majority or under Muslim-governed country should be protected from all injuries, sufferings and persecutions.

Translation: “Beware, if anyone persecutes any peaceful non-Muslim citizen [Mu’ahid], or diminishes his right, or forces him to work beyond his capacity, or takes from him anything without his consent, I shall plead for him on the Day of Judgment.”

The Chain Of Narration Of This Hadith:

Imam Abu Dawud has narrated this Hadith from Sulayman b. Dawud al-Mahri, from Ibn Wahb, from Abu Sakhr al-Madini, from Safwan b. Sulaim, from a number of Companions’ sons, from a number of Companions [Sahaba] of the Messenger of Allah- Peace be upon him. (Please see Sunan Abi Dawud – Book 20, Hadith 125- Arabic reference).

The purport of this Hadith is that if any Muslim persecutes any peaceful non-Muslim citizen, or diminishes his right and so on, as mentioned above in the Hadith, the beloved Prophet (peace be upon him) will plead for that peaceful non-Muslim on the Day of Judgment.

This Hadith is not simply a warning but a law executed in the blessed era of the beloved Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) even after the conquest of Makka [Fath-e-Makka]. This law is still the part of Islam. There is not a single statement of its being abrogated. Thus according to the great Ulema and Fuqaha of Islam, this law is universally and all-time valid in its essence and application. Therefore none of the followers of Ahadith or the followers of the interpretation of great Ulema and Fuqaha should hesitate to accept the message inherent in this Hadith.

Imam Bukhari narrates a Hadith from the chain of Qays b. Hafs, from Abdul Wahid, from Hasan, from Mujahid, on the authority of Abdullah bin Amr that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said,

“Whoever kills a peaceful non-Muslim living in minority [Mu'ahid] shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise, though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of forty years (of travelling). (Sahih Bukhari, Book 87, Hadith 52)

Imam Nasa’i, in his Sunan, has made a chapter on the forbiddance of killing a non-Muslim living under Muslim protection. In this chapter he has mentioned four Ahadith with slight difference of words—each forbidding the killing of a non-Muslim living in minority under Muslim protection. One of them that I think needs to be quoted here on behalf of all the four Ahadith that unanimously testify to the forbiddance of killing the peaceful non-Muslim is as follows;

Imam Nasa’i narrates from the chain of Ismaeel b. Masuood, from Khalid, from Uyaynah, from his father, on the authority of Abu Bakrah that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said,

“Whoever kills a peaceful non-Muslim living in minority or under Muslim-governed country [Mu'ahad] with no justification, Allah will forbid Paradise to him.” (Sunan Nasai, Book 45, Chapter “Seriousness of killing the Mua’hid”, Hadith 42)

Imam Abu Dawud has included, in his book of Sunan, a chapter on “Fulfilling the agreement of a peaceful non-Muslim who has a covenant, and the sanctity of his protection”. In his Arabic book of Hadith he has expressed it with the words “Bab Fil Wafaai Lil Mu’ahid Wa Hurmati Dhimmatehi”.

Imam Abu Dawud narrates the Hadith from Uthman b. Abi Shaiba, from Wakee’, from ‘Uyaynah b. Abd al-Rahman, from his father, on the authority of Abu Bakarah that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said,

Imam Tirmidhi, in his book of Hadith, has also made a chapter on “What is related about the one who kills a peaceful non-Muslim living in minority or under the Muslim protection”. He has included one Hadith in this chapter, narrating from the chain of Muhammad b. Bashshar, from Ma’di b. Sulayman al-Basri, from ‘Ajlan, from his father, on the authority of Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said,

“Indeed, whoever kills a peaceful non-Muslim living in minority or under the Muslim protection [Mu'ahid] that has a covenant from Allah and a covenant from His Messenger (peace be upon him), then he has violated the covenant with Allah and the covenant of His Messenger, so he shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise; even though its fragrance can be sensed from the distance of seventy autumns.” (Jami’ al-Tirmidhi, Book 16, Hadith 19)

Imam Ibn Majah, in his Sunan, narrates two Ahadith on the forbiddance of killing a peaceful non-Muslim living in minority or Muslim-run country — one Hadith from the chain of Abu Kuraib, from Abu Mu’awiyyah, from Hasan b. ‘Amr, from Mujahid, from Abdullah b. ‘Amr that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said,

“Whoever kills a peaceful non-Muslim living under the protection of Muslim-run country [Mu’ahid], will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, even though its fragrance may be detected from a distance of forty years” (Sunan Ibn Majah, Book 21, Hadith 2789-Arabic reference)

The second Hadith that Imam Ibn Majah narrates on this subject is from the chain of Muhammad b. Bashshar, from Ma’adi b. Sulayman, from Ibn ‘Ajlan, from his father, on the authority of Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said,

“Whoever kills a peaceful non-Muslim (living in Muslim-run country) who has the covenant with Allah and the covenant with his Messenger, will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, even though its fragrance may be detected from a distance of seventy years” (Sunan Ibn Majah, Book 21, Hadith 2788-Arabic reference)

The point to be noted here is that when a non-Muslim promises to peacefully live in any Muslim-governed country or in minority, he agrees to “the covenant from Allah and the covenant from His Messenger (peace be upon him). The terms “ذمة الله وذمة رسوله” mentioned in this Hadith have been translated differently in the English translations of the books of Ahadith. Some translate them as “covenant with Allah and covenant with His Messenger” while others as “Protection of Allah and protection of His Messenger”. But both the translations must have reflected the idea unanimously understood among the great jurists [Fuqaha] that Allah the Most High and His Messenger have forbidden the killing of the non-Muslim [Mu’ahid] who has agreed to peacefully live in minority or Muslim-governed country. So if anyone from among the Muslim members kills that non-Muslim, he will be termed as one violating the covenant from Allah and His Messenger and consequently he shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise. To further explain, that killer shall be punished in the Hereafter, if not by the Muslim-governed country.

This can be reinterpreted afresh that today’s non-Muslims living in minority or any Muslim countries, such as, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, and so on—should not be killed or tortured by any groups or individuals like those of ISIS, Taliban etc. The claims of such groups in terms of giving religious justification for killing the non-Muslims living in minority or any Muslim-governed countries are for nothing, but in fact to enforce false accusations on the Islamic Shariat which has nothing to do with such claims. For this and other reasons as mentioned above, the brainwashed youth or followers should think thousand times, before joining the cults of ISIS, Taliban and their likes, that by doing so and so they are going to enforce false accusations [Iftira’] on the Islamic Shariat and shall indeed taste the divine punishment in the Hereafter.

TOTAL COMMENTS:- &nbsp 18

"The personal is the political" carol hanish - i hope i got the spelling of her name right. or it could be hanisch. By hats off! - 2/24/2018 5:01:22 AM

Sultan Shahin.

Let me clear first" I am not ashamed" at all for whatever I have said about you.

Very Basic reason, you yourself put your life in public in questionare from with Yoginder Sikand, just remember there is no separate life for public figure if you promote yourself as public figure and than want to live personal life, that is the reason we have hypocrate babas, politician and different type of public figure. Thay say something in public and do personally something else which is you yourself are victim. Just remember that when public figure say saomething or do something they are setting some standards in public(samaj)

Your life is important it is because you promote one set if ideas that is called Isalm on the name of freedom you have achieved from your father.

You are doing knowingly or unknowingly or may very unknowngly Subcounciusly what Zakir Naik had done with Hindus.

On the name of Disclaimer on your website, you are putting whatever suits your Islamic agenda, I am reader of your published article since one and half year and I can see systmatically debunking Hindus in subconscious form.

Just read 13 part of article of Masood Alam on your website "Caste Base discrimination among Muslims" it looks like Hindus are culprit, also there are articles on sufisium that are trying to tell how Hindu learn from Muslims, and there is vice versa it will be bad only.

If you want to verify than there is pattern here on your website:

1) Crtisise Muslim and terrorist and violence attack by Muslim. Which is ok because it is Muslims personal affair.

2)Subcounciusly crtisice Hindus.

3)Subcounciusly prove that all evils among the Muslim in subcontinent is due to Hindus.

This you do on the name of disclaimer and authores own view.

On other hand in your view (public videos on YouTub) you trying to convince audience that loewer strata people adopted Islam because it was not discriminatory, which does not make sense when you have something to blame Hindu, it think it is your own subcouncius Hindu hatred which you tried to charge me as Muslim hatred, otherwise you may be very consistent.

I do not hate Muslims nor Hindus nor Muslims, I hate the belife of one sect is true and superiors and try to promote in various from from different platform to cheat humanity in whole.

About your Agnostic, I think every person pass(((may be other being as well, because we do not know there communication system))) through that stage its like pendulum, my best friend is old age Muslim, and she and her husband still are in state of pendulum when they see injustice in world ,even though they do five time Namaz and she does Parada.

Being agnostic is first sign of questioning God system on earth, it is good sign of love for other fellow human being and other being.

Most of the time agnostic and atheist are more better than people believing in once sext and relgion is Ture, theynserve humanity better than believers, look at Richard Hawkins, Richard Dawkins doing there best to out humans on other plant, look at they our Guy and Agnostic mathematician Alan Turing give first Mordern concept of computers( Muslim guy heaters should not even use computers, because it Alan Turing that gave us computer, watch imitation game movie)

I personally also have been in that agnostic state and remained pendulum of agnostic to believers.

I can debunk many of your decisive nature in public saying on YouTube and in form article but I am not here to prove Hindu ethos are superior, I remain on this website as commentator for my Hindu audience or something that is indirectly hurting Hindu existence as we have only one land and from world point of we are minority which has no place to run.

I am not RSS or Hindu extremist but I and like me all think of our own existence, Abrhamic relgion especially Islam had never given refuge to Hindus.

My duties is to expose people like you that may be doing knowingly, unknowingly or subconsciously unknowingly damaging Hindu existence.

It is the only relgion left in the world that will allow all kind of thought related to god.

Here is glipms of Hindu relgion which I Never believed " A monkey God Hanuman" I learned because of pervert Muslim working with us constantly chasing married Hindu women for his lust" it took me long time to understand why we had monkey God, A kami man can worship other form that is similar to human but not human if he/she really want to be englitment of God. There are many reason but this enough to tell me. We Hindus do not want put women in pards for men weakness but find the better solution in other form by diverting the same mind and make as purée as other, and God purity. The way can be different depend on the human character.

I want to preserve this ethos which Islam and Abrhamic relgion had finished.

Let me more honest with you, we non-Muslim(((a Muslim negative form I'd not believing Islam)))) feel mockery when you talk of pluralism and "la ikraha fid Eden" because if that was the case your paigmaber would not have break all idols and hijacked the Mecca" how will you justify your paigmaber this act with your "la ikraha fid deen" I will see overall behaviour and picture of Islam and your paigmaber that had done with humans not one tailored cut worsen of yours.

I do have respect for your paigamber for certain acts but not for all as per history propgated by Muslims ( may be they have changed to suit for there rule which is none of my business, my business effect on us Hindus due to that history)

I will again say I am not Ashamed about saying your personal life which you had made public to gain certain points. Any way you should not be feel deeply personally when you Muslims created & propagated personally life of your paigamber on name of Hadees after his death without his permission. It will be better if you and other Muslims just feelm ashamed of saying paigamber life publicly.

Jai Human, monkey God for today.

By Aayina - 2/23/2018 6:02:23 PM

Requiring one's spouse to convert to one's religion is barbaric and shows disrespect for one's spouse.

In a mixed marriage, children should be either exposed to both religions or to neither religion.

In any case, religious transmission to children should exclude transmission of prejudice, intolerance, segregationist tendencies and assumptions of superiority of one religion over others.

By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/18/2018 1:08:51 PM

Aayina, you should be ashamed of
yourself for bringing my personal life into the comment box. That is none of your
business.

However, now that you have and if my
memory is serving me right, this is perhaps the second or third time, I
must explain for the benefit of neutral readers.

I never advertised my marital life.
However, if somebody asks me or makes allegations of personal nature, I have to
state the facts. When I was sacked from the editorship of a magazine being run
by the "secular" Muslim leadership of the country for not having
converted my wife even after 12 years of marriage, the media got wind of it and
asked me questions. I told them what had happened. I had to. Then the Delhi Union of Journalists
of which I was a member went to court, to secure justice for me, as I had not been
paid my salary even for the month in which I had been sacked, not to speak
of the additional six months for which I should have been paid as per then government rules for such situations. The managing director Mr. Yunus Dehlavi deployed his
lawyer, incidentally from the RSS stable, to contest the case. After ten years,
in which the judge did not even heard me once, the DUJ lawyer stopped informing me of the dates. I stopped going to court every
second/third month. The case got dismissed.

This was the Islam of such luminaries like
Messrs. Salman Khurshid, Late Syed Hamid, A M Khusro, Kamal Farooqi and Yunus
Dehlavi, to which they wanted me to convert my wife. The Islam that I know of
asks employers to pay their employees before the sweat of their brows have
dried, and doesn't force anyone to convert, allows Muslims to marry any one from any faith, without requiring either of them them to convert. In my understanding of Islam, all human beings are ahl-e-kitab, as they have all received prophets of God.

However, the point is I did not
advertise all this. My employers didn’t even know that I had not converted my
wife for 13/14 months that I worked for them because I saw no reason to
advertise this. However, things happened. My marriage to a Hindu girl was no secret. I had faced Hindu
goons from my area in Delhi at one time who gheraoed my house for weeks with
the help of the local SHO, who used to harass my wife in my absence, until the
DCP intervened and rescued me and my wife?

This was known to many people. So,
somebody told my employers and they immediately scheduled a breakfast meeting of
the Board and asked me to convert her. As I read la ikraha fid Deen to
them, and told them that Hindus are ahl-e-kitab, like all other nations of the world
who have received prophets of Islam and have books of revelations, and we are
allowed even by orthodox Islam to have the most intimate relations with them, the
meeting broke and I was sacked the same day. I did not issue a press release to
advertise my problems or the nature of my marital life. It would be absurd to
do so.

As for my children, they are free to
choose their religion. I fought with my father as a young boy for my right to
choose my religion. I objected to his waking me up every morning for morning
prayers to a God I did not know and could not know at that stage in my life. As
a rational Maulvi, that he thankfully was, he agreed and accepted my promise
that when I grow up I would study all religions and choose mine or not choose
any if that’s what I feel.

I don’t think religion or philosophy of
life is something that can be inherited. How can then I possibly ask my
children to adopt my present religion. Like any thinking human being who is constantly learning new things and growing, I may change my own views on any subject tomorrow. So how can I ask any one else, much less my own children, to accept my present views as the Gospel truth. I was an agnostic for decades of my conscious
life. God blessed me with faith.

However, I have no right to share with you and make
public what my freethinking children think about religion and even about shamelessness
of people like you who would force me to talk about my personal life
experiences. [Of course, people write autobiographies and share their life
experiences. But that should be their choice.}

I
respect my children’s right to choose their life and their religion or
philosophy of life or not choose anything, which is also a choice. I fought for
my own rights to choose or not choose any religion as a young person and I
continue to fight for every human’s right to choose.

Much of what is wrong with the world is
because religion has become hereditary. Had you been born in a fundamentalist, obscurantist,
intolerant, exclusivist Muslim family, you would have probably been a shameless,
intolerant Muslim now, spewing hatred for Hindus. Start thinking for yourself,
maybe you will come out of the intense hatred of Muslims, particularly moderate,
liberal, progressive Muslims that informs your life and present thinking. You
have inherited this hate from the society in which you have lived since you were
born. Anyone able to think for himself can perhaps never be so full of hatred
for fellow human beings, from whichever religion or caste or colour or community.

By Sultan Shahin - 2/18/2018 7:34:41 AM

Addition to Hatts off.
Do even non-Muslim majority but Muslim dominated minority Areas in non-Muslims countries have rights to convert to Muslims.
Swami shrdhanad was killed because of this.
Openly practise hypocrisy is standard of Muslims nowadays.
Look at the Sultan Shanin, he advertise himself that I did not convert my my wife but he made sure his kids are Muslims. By Aayina - 2/17/2018 1:55:43 PM

do the minorities in an islamic nation have the right to preach and convert the momeen to polytheism? By hats off! - 2/17/2018 6:09:31 AM

Thank you Ghaus Siddiqi sahab, I want to now something more on this topic, though the information related to this topic is widely available on internet but which is correct is not clear to me so i want to know from you but i am engaged in some importnat wrok . after finish i will contact you. By Shahzad - 2/17/2018 3:56:47 AM

Dear shahzad, you can also look at the following characterization to understand the areas covered in the classical study of the Usul al-Fiqh (Science of Islamic Laws).

Usul al-Fiqh (Science of Islamic Laws) has four main sections of study and their sub-sections:

You can also study the components of Islamic Law; (1) The lawgiver (hakim), (2) the law (hukm) derived either of wahi jali or wahi khafi, (3) the objectives of law (mahkum bihi) and (4) the subjects of law (mahkum alaihi) that is those to whom the law applies or persons.

If you study all the areas of Science of Islamic laws and the components of Islamic law, you shall have a better understanding, facing any Islamic issue revolving around the relative subjects.

By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 2/14/2018 11:20:16 PM

Dear Shahbaz,

There was nothing
like confusing statement in MY previous comment. What I wrote therein is
unanimously accepted view among Islamic scholars.

I said, the ‘Hukm’
(Islamic rule/legal value/ruling) is not the revealed Arabic word of Allah Almighty but is that legal value
which is established and deduced from the revealed words of Allah Almighty.

A famous Islamic
scholar writes in his book “Al-ihkam fi usul al-ahkam”,

ان الحكم المصطلح ما ثبت بالخطاب
لا هو

In Islamic
terminology, Hukm [Islamic ruling/law/rule] is not the revealed words [of
Allah] but it is proved and deduced from the revealed speech [of Allah].

The same definition can be
searched in Sharh Jamu’l jawami’ by Imam Jalaluddin al Mahalli [well known for
the exegesis of the Holy Qur’an which was later completed by his renowned
student al Hafiz Jalaluddin al Suyuti and was known worldwide as Tafsir al
Jalalayn!], Sharhul Mukhtasar by Qazi Al-'Iji, 'Adud al-Din, Sharhul Minhaj by
Asnawi, Al-ihkam fi usul al-ahkam by Amidi etc. Fazil Qarabaghi, Allama Bihari,
Allama Qannauji and numerous Islamic scholars have adopted the same view. By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 2/8/2018 10:54:11 PM

Ghaus sb,

I got confused when you
said, “It should also be noted here that ‘Hukm’ (Islamic rule) is not the
Arabic word of Allah Almighty but is that legal value which is established and
deduced from the revealed words of Allah Almighty”.

Please give evidence for
what you say

By Shahbaz - 2/8/2018 9:48:00 PM

Dear Shahbaz
sahib,

In the
modern Western terminology, what is known as ‘Law’ is recognized as ‘Ruling’
(Hukm) in Islamic terminology.

In western
terminology what is known as “Legal Science” is recognized as Ilm al-Ahkam or ‘Al-Fiqh’
(Science of Islamic Laws) in Islamic terminology.

It is
incorrect to translate ‘Law’ as ‘Fiqh’. Al-Fiqh is not Law. But rather it is “Science
of Islamic Laws”.

In Western
terminology what is known as Jurisprudence is recognized as Usul al-Fiqh
(Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence) in Islamic terminology.

Some people
have wrongly used Islamic Sharia and Islamic law to mean the same thing. The fact
is that Shariat is a whole and Islamic Law is a part of it.

If you
study the definition of ‘Law’ in the writings of the western scholars, you will
find a huge difference among them. Each of them has differently defined ‘Law’.

Please
read the definitions of ‘Law’ made by St. Thomas, Richard Hooker, Immanuel
Kant, Savigny, Friedrich Engels, Black Stone, John Austin, Holland, Sir Fedrick
Polloc, Sidney Hartland, Professor G. C. Lee and Salmond etc, you will find
difference. Robson W.A has rightly said, “It is difficult to define law in a
satisfactory manner, it is still harder to find the beginnings of it. The origins
of law are shrouded in obscurity and are, perhaps, impossible to discover”. The
western scholars made their efforts in defining ‘Law’ after playing ‘trial-and-error’
activities.

In his book “The Reconstruction of Legal Thought in Islam, page 17”, Dr. Riyaz ul Hasan Gilani says “It is possible
for God Almighty alone to know with precision what rules of conduct are most
expedient for the human beings in this world. He therefore blessed the human
beings with the divine Revelation and gave them the body of rules of conduct
which are most suitable for the maximum number in this world. The conformity to
those rules causes good effect (the Heaven) in the Hereafter, while the
non-conformity leads to bad results (the Hell)”. (End of quote)

I remember
one Quranic verse which is translated into English as, “So do they wish a
judgement of ignorance? And whose judgement is better than that of Allah, for
the people who are certain? (5:50)

Cicero
says, “Law is neither contrived nor decreed by man; it is an eternal principle
which rules the whole universe, commanding what is right and prohibiting what
is wrong. Hence law is no mere artefact but is the divine reason bestowed by
the gods on the human race”.

One
western scholars says, “In Islam, the most conspicuous fact about Muhammad
(peace be upon him) is that he was not merely a divine prophet but also a
temporal ruler who governed, judged, punished and legislated. After the great
flight in A.D. 622 to Madina, when Muhammad (peace be upon him) acquired
political power he was sovereign as well as Divine prophet, but only sovereign
because of his prophetic office. The mosque was his council-chamber and hall of
audience; the Friday sermon his opportunity for declarations of policy and when
he uttered his most far-reaching injunctions he spoke as the very mouthpiece of
the deity”

As for
the Islamic terminology of ‘Hukm’ (Islamic Ruling or Law), the Islamic scholars
belonging to various schools of thought, unanimously agree upon its definition.
As per the Science of Islamic Laws (al-fiqh al-Islami), the definition of ‘hukm’
(translated in English ‘Ruling’ or ‘Law’) is universal and unchangeable. What is
Islamic Hukm (Law/Ruling) is one upon which all the scholars unanimously agree.
What is Ruling and what is not Ruling is another subject and hence should not
be confused with the unanimous definition of ‘Hukm’ (Ruling/Law).

In Arabic
Islamic Ruling or Islamic Law is defined as;

الحكم خطاب
الله المتعلق بأفعال المكلفين بالاقتضاء او التخيير او الوضع

Translation:
Law (hukm) is that which is established by a communication (khitab) from Allah
Almighty with reference to men’s acts, expressive either of demand or indifference
on His part, or being merely declaratory”.

It should
also be noted here that ‘Hukm’ (Islamic rule) is not the Arabic word of Allah
Almighty but is that legal value which is established and deduced from the
revealed words of Allah Almighty. The main source of Islamic
hukm/Law/ruling/rule is the holy Quran and next to it is Sunnah and then Ijma
qati’, as these sources are ways of knowing the will of Allah Almighty on many
accounts.

By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 2/8/2018 12:08:46 AM

Ghaus sb,

what is law, fiqh, jurisprudence, hukm? is there any mutually agreed definition in Islam?

By Shahzad - 2/7/2018 10:19:43 PM

Ma Sha Allah. Very fine and well researched article.

May Allah save you from the bigoted commentators

By Abidi Zafar - 1/28/2018 6:13:04 PM

Gulam Mouyddin Muslims living in wester countries and in India are busy in putting pressure to have exclusive and different laws for Muslims.

Muslims does not allowed to use rational mind, because rational mind works on logic, can't you see on this find trolling against rational mind.

Islam is like virus if it is treated by whabisim or Tablige Jamat, than mind once get infected it has no anti-dote, than hypocrisy is only left out, you can see in the articles on this website, on one hand talk of universalism and on other hand constantly try to prove Quran is the only best book.

By Aayina - 1/20/2018 2:49:58 AM

Articale itself is proof of the Muslim superiority, and supremacy has to be main source of law and how to treat than non-Muslims.

Do Pagan world had separate law for Jews.

Pagan of Arab were good respectful of others belife.

Muhmmad paigmaber Hijacked the Mecca from the peace loving Meccan, where they were respecting each other, no concept of minority, God is Punishing Muslims for what their paigmaber and they did with others belife.

This all type of articles fake harmony and cannot be trusted when their own paigmaber break the and stone others place by force.